Table 4.
Efficacy comparator analysis for BRVO and CRVO (all data are presented at 6 months unless otherwise stated)
| 0.3 mg RBZ vs. sham | 0.5 mg RBZ vs. sham | Dex IVT 0.35 mg vs. sham | Dex IVT 0.7 mg vs. sham | Laser vs. no treatment/observation | IVB vs. sham | IVB vs. laser | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
BRVO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mean change in BCVA (measured by ETDRS scale unless otherwise specified), mean difference (95% CI) |
9.30* (6.40, 12.20) [43] |
11.0* (7.83, 14.17) [43] |
NR |
2.5* (0.6, 4.3) [18] |
Battaglia Parodi et al (9 months), -0.01, (-0.08, +0.06)a[45] |
6 weeks, logMAR; –0.26* (–0.44, –0.08)b[49] |
logMAR; –0.11 (–0.01, –0.21)b[50] |
| Number of patients gaining ≥ 15 letters, OR (95% CI) |
3.05* (1.84, 5.07) [43] |
3.88* (2.32, 6.49) [43] |
NR |
1.19 (0.80, 1.78) [18] |
NR |
NR |
logMAR; 3.14 (0.68, 14.5) [50] |
| Number of patients gaining ≥ 10 letters, OR (95% CI) |
4.22* (2.51, 7.09) [43] |
5.48* (3.18, 9.44) [43] |
1.07 (0.70, 1.62) [18] |
1.43* (1.01, 2.01) [18] |
BVOS (36 months), [6] 3.16* (1.25, 8.00) |
NR |
NR |
|
CRVO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mean change in BCVA, mean difference (95% CI) |
11.9* (8.01, 15.79) [42] |
CRUISE, 14.10* (10.51, 17.69) [42] ROCC, 11.0* (–2.48, 24.48) [44] |
NR |
NR, NSc |
NR |
NR |
NR |
| Number of patients gaining ≥ 15 letters, OR (95% CI) |
4.22* (2.38, 7.47) [42] |
CRUISE, 4.48* (2.52, 7.94) [42] |
1.46 (0.76, 2.79) [18] |
1.54 (0.79, 2.98) [18] |
NR |
NR |
NR |
| Number of patients gaining ≥ 10 letters, OR (95% CI) |
4.82* (2.84, 8.18) [42] |
CRUISE, 7.12* (4.12, 12.29) [42] |
NR |
1.15 (0.67, 1.97) [18] |
CVOS (12 months), 1.90 (0.65, 5.54) [10] Laatikainen et al (12 months), 1.00 (0.13, 7.75) [46] May et al (24 months), 0.70 (0.14, 3.56) [47] |
NR |
NR |
|
BRVO or CRVO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Number of patients gaining ≥ 10 letters, OR (95% CI) | NR | NR | NR | 3 months, 9.82* (2.84, 33.99) [20] | NR | NR | NR |
aMeasured by Snellen chart score.
bMeasured in LogMAR, cThe difference was reported as being not statistically significant (pooled data for BRVO and CRVO show significant improvement for mean difference in BCVA: OR 2.5 [95% CI 0.7, 4.3]).
*Statistically significant difference between groups.
BCVA, Best-corrected visual acuity; BRVO, Branch retinal vein occlusion; BVOS, Branch retinal Vein Occlusion Study; CI, Confidence interval; CRUISE, Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Macular Edema after Central Retinal Vein OcclUsIon Study: Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety; CRVO, Central retinal vein occlusion; CVOS, Central retinal Vein Occlusion Study; Dex IVT, Dexamethasone intravitreal; ETDRS, Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study; IVB, intravitreal bevacizumab; logMAR, Logarithm of minimum angle of resolution; OR, Odds ratio; RBZ, Ranibizumab; ROCC, Study Comparing Ranibizumab to Sham in Patients with Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal vein OCClusion; NR, Not reported; NS, Not significant.